Slashdot Mirror
My Visit to SCO
Ian Lance Taylor writes "I signed the SCO NDA and visited them to discuss their claims against Linux. My essay about it is on the Linux Journal web site. The short version is that SCO's claims are unproven, as indeed I expected would be the case before I went. The amount of information they were willing to show me was extremely limited, and
did not by itself prove that their claims were true, nor that their claims were false." Other SCO-bits: Sun is doing their usual foot-in-mouth routine, thinking that two FUDs makes a Solaris purchase, or something like that. IBM is now joining the contact the customers bandwagon. Eric Raymond has been keeping himself busy - here's a story about him. SCO hates BSD, too, but they're not taking it lying down. And of course Cringley has his two cents.
You are aware that NDA stands for "Non-Disclosure Agreement", right?
It doesn't stand for "Now Divulge All".
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
It's a complete rip of another users post, and sorry to him for trying to whore him out of this post, but:
Thank goodness! I was worried I'd go a day without finding out more about SCO.
I am currently R(ing)TFA, and I gotta say... There's not much to go on. It makes one think that SCO might not have a case.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
Companies are strong enough to lobby for (and get) extentions to copyright laws, mandates for manufacturers to implement digital restrictions; invasive EULA terms allowing search, seizure, and destruction without probable cause; EULA terms circumventing the right to free speech by disallowing the dissemination of performance statistics; laws propping up otherwise unsustainable "give away the razor, sell the blades at a premium" marketing schemes; and tariffs (ahem, music industry subsidies) on blank media. We are seeing an era where supposedly capitalist countries are turning into command economies owned by the media and software industries. The new laws these companies purchase essentially bind the "invisible hand" that's *supposed* to control the economy and pervert what's left of capitalism. When you buy RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft products, you are buying into corporate communism. As you pay for overpriced products, expect more of the same abuses in the future as you are funding for the very lobbying and DRM development that is undermining a true capitalistic economy. Ironically, socialist operating systems such as Linux and BSD are one way to avoid a Soviet future. Or more likely, stave it off for a period of time. Please realize that Linux is socialist software and is not related to Soviet communism in any way. Donating code to GPLed projects is no more communist-like than donating spare change to the Salvation Army.
(Interestingly, the GNU GPL is designed to prevent Soviet-style corporate communism by requiring authors and distributors to cede the rights granted by law that allow them to take away rights from those who receive the software. However, I'm not going to analyze the license any further. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.)
How are artists supposed to compete in a capitalistic society when a cartel controls the airwaves, receives media subsidies, signs exclusive contracts for shelf space, and owns the means of distribution? Why must artists cede their copyrights to a cartel in order to make a living? How is that any different from the former Soviet Union where artists must give the rights of their works to the government in order to live? I see little difference between the two-- in one case a trust owns the rights, in the other it is the government. In this day and age there is little difference between corporations and government-- the two are married to each other to the extent that for all practical purposes they are the same entity.
Fortunately, there is one medium that the music industry hasn't successfully controlled.. at least not yet. That is the Internet. It is the only means by which independent artists have a chance to distribute, advertise, and sell their works worldwide. The Internet is already on the RIAA's hit list.
Now let's go back to the discussion of communism. Mind you, I'm not talking about unattainable Marxist idealism, but the form of communism that actually developed in Soviet Russia-- the command economy. During the Red Scare, many innocent people were accused of working for Soviet interests and persecuted because of those accusations. The Red Scare was rather rash and foolish in hindsight because it turned out that the accusations were baseless. However, I can tell you one thing for certain. The RIAA is a communist organization. Its members are true red Soviet Russia comrade wannabes in the clothes of capitalists. The truth is that the RIAA is not interested in playing by the laws that have served the country for centuries. The RIAA wants to control the technology you own. In a way the RIAA wants to own the functionality of your hardware and then lease you a few features as the media industry pleases. At the whim of the industry, corporations may retract features in future products and force product firmware updates, much like a communist government taking back a bicycle it loaned to you because the bike isn't yours to own. The RIAA seeks to micromanage the rights to its works to an extent that requires perve
...to "It's funny,laugh"?
I really wish that IBM would just buy these whiney babies out and open source Unix. Well, first IBM collects some payments from Microsoft for the "Unix license" that they "bought" from SCO, and then IBM makes it open source.
It's not pseudo-intellectual. That's the term that's used. It means friend of the court and is a common term in legal circles.
Wail, Interesting narrative, definitely appears to confirm the speculation we have read, now we just wait till SCO presses charges against you for violating the NDA, and we'll know its true SCO has no case...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
These SCO articles no longer generate any serious discussion. It is a free-for-all post-fest of +5 Funny. Why bother putting these on the front page anymore?
In a discussion I was reading that mentioned this article, it was mentioned that there was a misspelled word in the comments of some allegedly copied code. If true, then one could just strip the comments from the Linux source, and do a spell check in the appropriate language. I forgot where I was this. Can somebody verify?
:)
Or better yet, Ian Taylor can just tell us the name of the file.
I really have only a basic idea of what the whole SCO/IBM case is here, but in my impression SCO is at blame here. I did notice at work (Safeway) that on a terminal screen there was a login prompt then below it lines and lines of "this material is copyrighted etc etc, please call to validate" and all sorts of other warnings. When will the software industry learn that making its legal users feel like pirates isn't the way to go. Compatatively we have the whole WinXP activation fiasco, and I say that because it makes it near impossible for pirate users, but increidbly unfair and awkward for legal users, for example if you upgrade your motherboard and reinstall windows, you have to call them again and they make you feel guilty for reinstalling windows, asking you questions thinking you are trying to steal windows... seems that they concentrated on the bad people rather than the paying customers (who outweigh the bad ones).
I realize he may lack /. creds, but his article
makes a certain amount of sense, IMO.
.nosig
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sco. com
'Nuff said.
Enough with the SCO stories!
I've wondered this ever since SCO started saying they'd let people look at the code under an NDA. Perhaps you can give us some light as to what the NDA swore you to?
NDAs are held to be invalid if the information that you agree not to disclose is already public information, or is revealed to the general public through someone elses doing at a later time.
If the claim is that certain lines of code belonging to SCO are now being distributed in the public domain then it would seem that you couldn't NDA that away - the cat's already out of the bag so to speak. Assuming their claims are 100% valid, everyone who signed the NDAs is perfectly free to tell you exactly what lines of code are infringing, yet nobody has done this. Suppose because they can't find anything that's conclusively out in the open already (the basis of SCO's claims)
It takes bawls, BAWLS i tell you, to play the FUD like this one day, then chastise Microsoft for doing it another day. But, you can't blame them for trying to make a buck.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
This essay describes my visit to SCO on June 17, 2003, to discuss SCO's claim that Linux infringes on its intellectual property rights. I visited the SCO office in Lindon, Utah, for about one hour. I spoke with Chris Sontag, Senior Vice President, Operating Systems Division, and with Blake Stowell, Director of Public Relations. In order to speak with them, I signed a non-disclosure agreement.
The short version of this essay is SCO's claims are unproven, as I expected would be the case before I went. The amount of information SCO was willing to show me was extremely limited, and it did not by itself prove that SCO's claims were true nor that its claims were false.
Background
I won't give the full background here, as it is well covered elsewhere, such as on Karsten Self's page. The short version, as of June 17, 2003, is SCO has sued IBM, alleging that IBM took work that was the intellectual property of SCO and incorporated it into Linux (when I say "Linux" in this essay, I mean specifically the Linux kernel, not a complete distribution). SCO is the current owner of Unix, which originally was developed by AT&T. SCO, which used to be named Caldera, purchased the rights to Unix from a different company named SCO, which has since changed its name to Tarantella. Along with Unix, SCO purchased a number of contractual agreements, including one with IBM. SCO is alleging that IBM has violated that contract.
SCO also sent a letter to some 1,500 commercial users of Linux distributions, warning them that Linux may be an unauthorized derivative of code owned by SCO. That is, SCO alleges that Linux actually to some extent is owned by SCO and may not be distributed under the GPL. The letter further claims that users of Linux may have legal liability because of this.
SCO said it would provide evidence that Linux is a derivative of Unix to independent analysts. With the help of Don Marti, Editor in Chief of Linux Journal, I contacted SCO and offered to be one of those analysts. SCO agreed, subject to my signing the NDA and traveling to its headquarters in Lindon, Utah.
SCO's legal case is complicated by the fact that when SCO was named Caldera it was itself a Linux distributor, and it may have distributed, under the GPL, the code which it now claims to own. It also complicated by allegations that SCO has incorporated Linux code under the GPL into UnixWare. These issues may indeed cause SCO's legal case to flounder, but not in the way I would prefer it to flounder.
Why Did I Go?
I took the trouble to visit SCO because I care about what happens to free software in general and Linux in particular. The SCO claims have put a cloud over Linux. I have heard speculation from business acquaintances that the free versions of Linux will be shunned by corporate IT users, who will be unwilling to take the legal risk of using it. I don't think that would be good for Linux or for free software.
I remember the AT&T case against BSDI and the University of California, which arguably stalled BSD development for a few years. Indeed, it arguably was the root cause of Linux's popularity, because Linux development was not s
"and say Solaris is free and clear"h tml)
(http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1018669.
Gosh !!!
*SUN GPLed SOLARIS*
lol 8p
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Slashdot is just implicitly helping spread the FUD around by focusing so much coverage here.
OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint
Eric Raymond
Revision 1.16 2003-06-03 esr
Japanese translation available.
At first, residents of Oahu and Maui idly dismissed the SCO rumors as nonsense.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
Even if IBM buy SCO, they probably couldn't make Unix open-source because SCO, as they claim, doesn't own all the copyright on Unix, but the right "to defend them".
Montreal - Best city to live in!
Earth to Sontag YOU ARE INSANE Sue that, fuckhead.
Trolling is a art,
While, SCO's claims seem to be destined to fizzle out eventually, I fear they may have caused enough damage by then. This will give fodder to anti-linux lobbby claiming this is something that would never happen with a proprietary. Yeah, Linux may be great, but look at "these problems" with "this kinda software".
"The time has come" the walrus said " for a GOOD swim."
In the one article "SCO hates BSD" it states it has problems with JFS and Read Copy Update in Linux. This link "http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/jfs/pro ject/pub/faq.txt"
states IBM first introduces JFS in OS/2 before Linux and AIX back in 99.
Second I believe Read Copy update was researched at the Univ of Toronto with an IBM grant.
That was one of the most informative things I've ever read on Slashdot. Thanks, Ian.
However, there's a large discrepancy in some of SCO's claims. There are two scenarios here, which are not mutually exclusive:
1. Linux source code incorporated original SysV code, due to formerly wide distribution of this code (e.g. in Solaris), textbook examples, or sloppiness of contributors from large vendors. This would be theft of code that SCO legally owns the copyright to.
2. Technologies developed by other companies as add-ons to SysV were incorporated into Linux. This is not copyright infringement at all, but violates contracts signed by the original parties.
SCO is clearly claiming (2), and if the contract holds up they may be partially correct (in the sense that IBM fucked up, but not in their wild accusations against the Linux community). I didn't get a clear impression from the article if they're seriously claiming (1) as well. They've stated as much in the past, but the only specific basis for the lawsuit that they've mentioned so far is the incorporation of novel technologies that were not developed by AT&T/SCO.
So... This SCO, no - Caldera... it must be... A DOPPELGANGER! Listen not to it's LIES! It was PRETENDING to help people, oh yes, and it's PRETENDING to give away it's software, but all the while, it was really laughing - hahaha! - but I know where they really came from!
*The sealab suddenly explodes, when it's Unixware license unexpectedly expires*
Ryan Fenton
Parent AC post was stolen from this Kanello artical
/. editors do not wish to salvage any credibility by presenting all sides of the issue.
Why no mention of this article in original posting?
Because
Technological evangelism at its finest.
There is just something soooo wrong about this.
The main problem with OSS is that it's too much orientated on creating similar versions of existing commercial systems. Take Linux and Unix for example.
As long as we stay with this system we will always be volunerable to such bogus claims.
OSS community must start to develop new ideas and insights. Original systems. Not always "we must create that desktop/system/window server/blurb/blobb/globber like bla..." Nobody can claim you have copied stuff that was never coded before.
There enough skill in the OSS community to do this. We can create the next generation of software and computer systems. We just have to try.
Well, I suppose that this albeit being true will go down to "-1 Troll" in a few seconds. The funny thing is that slashdot is sometimes like the communist dictatorships when it goes to critize OSS. You don't even accept friendly, constructive critics. All slightest derivation from the holy path of pure OSS is considered SATAN MICROSOFT and thus has go to the firey pit of -1 Flamebait at once where is burns for enternity. Well, such a mindset was one of the most important factors which contributed to the downfall of most communist systems in the world.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Will they be going after Professor Tanenbaum as well?
I asked the SCO director here in the Netherlands and although he said they had no plans to sue Tanenbaum, he didn't want to rule it out either...
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?
FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.
AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.
AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?
Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?
this thing is so damn funny i had to post it here... kudos to the THe original post
I postulate that it is entirely possible that the driving force behind SCO v. IBM is the US Administration.
MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY
Would the current US authorities like to have the ability to infiltrate all computers at will, even destroy them? Yes: they have demonstrated amply that they want unfettered and absolute power.
Would they BE WILLING to subvert the US justice system to achieve this? Yes: they will do whatever it takes. They have already shown a willingness to manipulate the intelligence services for political ends; lying to Congress they regard as justified; the spirit and even the letter of the US constitution is being ignored -- they would certainly BE WILLING to include manipulation of the legal system.
Would they BE ABLE to subvert the US justice system at will? Unclear: I think the justice system was probably manipulated by the government in Justice v. Microsoft. I think there was a secret agreement whereby Microsoft agreed to help US authorities access computers in return for being allowed to continue operating as an abusive monopoly. That said, I am not sure they would BE ABLE to manipulate a case, to achieve the result they wanted, if one of the participants in the lawsuit was a powerful opponent of that result. What happened after the last presidential election in the US does not, however, inspire confidence that they could not.
So, to recap so far, the US authorities would like to have the ability to exert control over computers worldwide. They would have no compunction in breaking laws to achieve this. Whether they could actually manipulate the legal system to advance these aims is unclear.
How might this relate to SCO v. IBM? With open source operating systems, secret access into computers worldwide would probably be unattainable. The US authorities would consider a totally ridiculous court ruling that:
(a) would pass control of Linux, BSD etc. to SCO (under conditions where part of the source would become closed) or,
(b) better still virtually eliminate these products
as in their best interests. If, through interference, they could achieve such a ruling, most observers would probably not be unduly suspicious given the past record of judicial rulings in the US.
(Far fetched, but possible: could the recently announced SEC probe into IBM be part of an attempt to stitch IBM up? That could then be used to leverage IBM's acquiescence to a settlement the US authorities wanted.)
MICROSOFT
I believe Microsoft has already made secret agreements with the US authorities. An extension under which they get to destroy their open source competition in return for continuation of what they have already agreed is a no brainer. Their only slight concern might be whether this might someday be exposed. Ethics and laws are no real consideration.
SCO
They would go along with anything good for their "stockholders" (meaning Darl McBride and friends).
SCO's LEGAL REPRESENTATION
At the federal level, we have Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (including David Boies himself). As the firm that negotiated Microsoft's deal with the US Administration in Justice v. Microsoft, they would be the logical choice for this case if my conjectures are correct.
In Utah, SCO is represented by Brent O. Hatch and Mark F. James of the law firm Hatch, James & Dodge. Hatch is the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah (a strong administration insider).
THE OTHER MYSTERIOUS SCO FINANCIAL SUPPORTER
Seriously, why does anyone care what he thinks? Is he a lawyer? No. Does he work for SCO, or IBM, or anyone who is involved in this case? No.
This guy has been a grandstanding asshole for far too long. His childish rants where he takes slights to the free software community personally and responds accordingly has done more to damage the professional reputation than SCO could ever hope to do. Let's drop this guy like the liability that he is.
It sure doesn't seem that the alleged violations are very agregious.
sHi
Really, the meat of the SCO case revolves around the whole "derivative works" issue, and how sweeping the ownership/control claims they can make under such a contract.
If SCO wins, who things this will be the end of it?
Who thinks it will stop with SCO?
How about another term in everyone else's contracts, claiming "derivative works" rights, including but not limited to Microsoft. Why bother arm-twisting and acquisitions to prevent OS/2 (past) or Linux ports? Now using correct license terms, you can make ISV's works "derivative" and simply make such things illegal.
Anyone want to bet against this, if SCO were to win?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Theoretically, under this model, the descendents of Johann Gutenberg now get to sue every book publisher in the world for not paying them royalties on the IP of printable-format books. Wow. Time to hit the family tree records!
IAALS.
I say the FSF should team up with Redhat and SUSE, and make a hostile buyout of the company, then sue the CEOs.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Well, why not? It's not like it makes any less sense, is it?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Well, he can't write drivel about being a millionaire any more.
Conan O'Brien, "In The Year 2000"
"In the year 2003, SCO will claim that Linux kernel developers have copied fragments of SCO's own IP into the Linux kernel. Amazon.com will follow suit by claiming that the Linux kernel also implements proprietary One-click shopping code derived from cookies found in a web client's Stored Cookie Folder. True story. Yeah. *nods big head*"
I think the fact that JFS and other subsystems can be so easily ported between systems proves that they are not dependant on and logically not derivitive works of UNIX. Is Veritas Volume Manager a derivitive of UNIX because it runs on several UNIX platforms? It also runs on Windows and other platforms.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
what the fuck are these mods smoking? don't you know that this has been posted at least three times a day for the past few days? someone mod this back down to the offtopic it deserves
YOU SUCK BALLS!
Two things stuck out for me, after reading.
The biggie: SCO basically is arguing that any code developed on top of Unix is a derivative work of Unix.
If you developed on Unix, and then went to Linux and did something similiar a few years down the line, with the benefit of hindsight yet with the same goals in mind, you probably did one of two things: recoded the section from memory, or, recoded a part of it using what you remembered plus possibly a better method that you had learned through sheer experience. SCO wants to claim rights to that experience. So no matter where you go from this day forward, if you happen to code the same thing in a *nix-like operating system, and they see the same algorithm (because, for example, the one you came up with couldn't be improved on), they should get a chunk of that.
Next: SCO said it has no current program [for Linux Licensing]. It hopes to come up with something in which noncommercial use and educational use would be free, but for commercial use it wants some remuneration. SCO said it hadn't come up with a plan because it still is trying to figure out the scale of the problem.
Did anyone else cringe as soon as they read the term "Linux Licensing", which preceded that paragraph?
"the scale of the problem" is an easy way of saying "finding every corporate customer on Redhat, Lindows, SUSE, and every other distro's books and sending them OUR Linux Licensing agreement."
This is so painful to watch. The company wants to say that anyone with a good idea cannot port that idea years later. That they own it. That even if that programmer kept a chunk of the code they once wrote, because they knew they couldn't remember it line-per-line, and copied it into a kernel module, that they own the rights to it.
More or less, if you've ever worked for Company A, coded something for them, found a very unique and exceptional way of, say, saving a compressed binary file, and you save that chunk of code for later use, and use it in free, GPL'd, software, then Company A has the right to sue you for violating their Intellectual Property. That, to me, is wrong. Even if the comments are the same. Even if the algorithm is the same.
Welcome to the grey area of black and white operating systems. What a terrible place to be.
honestly, i am sick and tired reading all this SCO (the sound a gay man makes when choking a cock) on slashdot and any other places. isn't it simply possible to ignore these people and don't make so much noise around them. as more noise you make as more they feel that they are important. simply forget about them and done. they are not worth being mentioned on slashdot every second day.
The article mentioned that Redhat had $300 million in cash and other investments. And that they could easily buy SCO.
But I think it's a little unfair for red-hat to pickup the tab for this. I really doubt that Anything SCO has is actualy worth $130 million dollars, certanly not in the form that Redhat could capitalize on. (unless they wanted to keep suing IBM)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Seeking to invalidate SCO's claims, ESR managed to round up 60 users who had access to SysV code. Is it going to be enough? BSD could claim that thousands of users had access to that code. If what ESR claims is true (SCO licencinc SysV to universities) than the whole case looks more and more like BSD (+Univ. of California) vs. USL case. Read IT
It's been over 24 hours since the last SCO article. I was starting to freak.
This is not my sandwich.
...signing the NDA and sitting through their presentation has no worthwhile benefits at all. They prove nothing.
To believe the first and second claims about ownership and UNIX and IBM/AIX you pretty much have to take it as they tell you. They provide no excerpts from the contracts, or the contracts themselves, which would be the only way to prove those claims.
And like the writer mentioned, they won't provide any info on the revision history, etc, so they in no way prove beyond any kind of reasonable doubt that the code was copied from System V.
Ok, so you go sign a heavily restrictive NDA, to view supposed evidence, but are shown very inconclusive claims that everyone else has heard and you come out with more questions and even less faith (if thats possible) in SCO's claims. Sounds like they're just trying to get the people crying for them to put up or shut up to quiet down themselves and have no real intention of providing any real evidence to anyone unless a court makes them.
*sighs*
Blake
Do a few bad apples spoil the bunch?
Assume for a second that some copyrighted Unix source code is in Linux (I find this plausable). Also assume that copyright protection is necessary for lots of innovation (I also find this plausable, and most economists agree). And, anyway, assume that we are society based on laws, and those laws must be enforced for the greater good.
Is Linux now "tainted"? What happens if they find and remove all the offending code, is that good enough? What if a steal a car and then return it, does it negate the crime? I am in the software industry, and I can tell you, if someone steals software, simply removing it later does not end their libility.
On the other hand, just because a few wanna-bee coders couldn't figure out how to write something themselves and copied it from somewhere else, should we declare the work of the vast majority of Linux contributers to be tainted? (I am assuming that the vast majority of Linux code is an original work, which I believe it is, but, of course, who knows until it all comes out). It would seem unfare to allow the bad actions of a few to kill the work of hundreds, but it also seems unfair to let theft go unpunished.
I don't know the answer. This seems like one of those ethical situations where both sides are right (except the third side, the theives, but I think most agree they are in the wrong). This will all probably come down to some legal technicality or out-of-court settlement, but I think the ethical question is interesting.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
And if real life was like Monopoly, when SCO is bankrupted by IBM after these lawsuits happen, all of SCO's remaining money and property pass to IBM.
Now that would be a win for IBM!
"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Lindon. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."
Then all the problems would be solved. RIAA getting you down? Whap! Don't like SCO? Splat! Microsoft is unfair? ...Bwannng! Think CowboyNeal should be president? Biff! (Yes, the OCS would always make a comical noise when it acts.)
Litigious bastards
Maybe after he's done at OSI he could work for the RIAA - his view of intellectual property law is as reactionary as anything Hillary Rosen has ever proposed. I wonder if, like Orin Hatch, he believes we can now rightfully destroy SCO's computers? Sign me up, man.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Its not like Sun is saying "Dont use Linux/BSD/OSS"
/. editors have something against Sun....
You havent seen Sun say "We arent doing Madhatter anymore" or "We're not going to be reselling Redhat anymore"
They are saying, "Use Solaris instead of AIX because we have all the rights to Solaris" What, you think IBM wouldnt be doing the same thing if SCO came after Sun? Jeez, nearly makes you think that
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Buy from Apple. They have no such nonsense with OS X. No serial numbers, no activation, no spying, no treating you like a criminal, no slimy EULAs giving them access to your drive and all data on it.
Just an operating system on a couple of CDs that works, installs easily and still makes Apple money. Imagine that.
Why is the author worried about IBM pulling out its patent portfolio and beating down SCO? As I understand patents, you don't have to enforce them with all parties. IBM has a current interest, and investment, in Linux so why would anyone by worried that IBM beating SCO to death with patents would mean IBM would then turn the patents on Linux?
KhyronI suppose I can post this here, even though the days are a bit wrong... It was written on 28-May, the day Novell first shot holes in SCO's argument. Still as true as ever.
Lady Caldera
(to the tune of the Beatles' "Lady Madonna")
Lady Caldera, stock price at your feet.
Wonder how you'll manage to make ends meet.
Who has the money? How you pay the rent?
Did you think that UNIX trademark was heaven sent?
Wednesday morning news just like a bombshell.
We all watch their stock drop like a rock.
Caldera has learned kiss its arsecheeks goodbye.
See how they run.
Lady Caldera, IP fakes confess!
Wonder how you'll manage to keep up this jest.
See how they run.
Lady Caldera, lying in the press,
Blackmailing the righteous ones, in your duress.
Wednesday afternoon is never ending.
Thursday morning news will be as bad.
Thursday night your stocks, they will need mending.
See how they run.
Lady Caldera, stock price at your feet.
Wonder how you'll manage to make ends meet.
I'm amazed when I see comments from people who are sick of reading about the SCO lawsuit. I would say that Slashdot is the best Linux advocacy site there is, and the outcome of this lawsuit will have profound implications for all Linux users. I work in the IT industry, as I'm sure do most of the readers here, and I prefer to be well-informed on topics that have a direct bearing on my profession.
From Cringely's article:
IBM has the largest legal department of any company in the world. They are INCREDIBLY sensitive about IP ownership, which produces for them more than $1.5 billion per year in license fees. They have embraced the GPL very carefully for their Linux work. The very fact that this code was released under the GPL indicates it was vetted and found acceptable by the IBM legal department. It's not like sometimes they don't bother to go through this procedure.
Sometimes, stickup artists like SCO pick the wrong victim...
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
how about a run of more than a few stories without a SCO story in them?
Who are these people, that their opinions carry weight? Other than techie bloggers, I mean? If Linus, Donald Becker, Bill Gates, RMS, or Steve Jobs had an opinion on something, I'd consider caring.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
duh.
Great point. Also, weren't they GIVING their ancient linux away until very recently? It's hard to give something away then claim trade secret. Although I'm not sure that covers all their claims, as they tend to jump around a lot.
Similarly, I would bring up the old "If linux copied SMP from you, how come they're so much better at it?" routine. OpenLinux flat sucks, and that's all there is to it.
It's also fun to hear them interpret the GPL. They seem to think that, since IBM put their code into the GPL, that this prevents their code from actually BEING GPL'd...even if THEY release linux too! Something must be in the water in Utah.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
So why hasn't anyone sent an email to those 1500 companies telling them that using UNIX could put them in violation of SCO's licensing agreements if they are developing software on it?
Maybe this is a stupid question and it would probably take a lawyer to answer, but Iâ(TM)ll ask it anyway. SCO is suing IBM for contract violation any possibly copywriter infringement yes? So, even if IBM were blatantly and intentionally guilty. How does this affect Linux users. No seriously how can SCO expect to extract money from the behavior of IBM from anybody other then IBM?
Maybe I'm missing something about the claim but the code isn't identical to anyoneâ(TM)s description so it isn't a copyright violation. SCO has no patents, so where is the Linux liability?
Especially for the people who use Linux. I mean if Ford makes a copy of a patented Chevy part and puts it the Ford Torus. Chevy can't go after everyone who bought a Torus for extra money because Ford didn't have permission. I don't see the difference here.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
He can go belly up but that's about it.
Help fight continental drift.
the ambulance-chaser of the computer world.
Is it me, or does Suns bid for AIX customers reek of
1) Telephone companies
2) Telemarketers (in general)
3) Any TV commercial for ANY polidition in ANY race.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
I heard about a project done by a company in india for microsoft in 1999-2001 time frame(with 3 or more persons working fulltime on the project). microsoft gave a list of patents and asked the company to verify whether linux has violated those patents or not. I think the indian company found some probable violations. Seeing what is happening now with sco and linux, i feel that microsoft may be behind these law suits.
I can't help thinking that as of this writing SCO has a market cap of around $130 million and Red Hat has nearly $300 million in cash and investments. Even at an inflated price, Red Hat could afford to buy SCO and free up Unix once and for all. Live the dream.
And IBM could afford to do it and might even still have enough money to buy a G8 country. OK, that's an exaggeration, but if Red Hat could afford it, IBM certainly could. Apple could. And Microsoft could.
And this leads one to ask: why haven't they? If MS really thought SCO had a smoking gun to put straight through Linux's heart, don't you think they'd do it in a second? They're willing to dump millions on software licensing and lobbying not to lose to Linux in the public sector and large coroporate installations. A cool $130 Million that could knock Linux development flat for 5-10 years would be an easy investment for them.
But they don't do it. Very curious. So how compelling is that case again?
Tweet, tweet.
As a finale, they settle out of court with SCO for the counter-damages. IBM gets SCO. Make Sontag and McBride sign 3 year employment agreements. Maybe they assign them as security guards to the building where all of the Linux work is done. So that every day, all of the Linux people can snicker at them as they come into the building. You know, take their hat and play keep-away, put kick me signs on their backs, etc. Or perhaps they make them walk around town in Penguin suits handing out IBM Linux promo material. Make them attend Open Source conventions in a dunk tank. The possibilities are endless!
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
One paragraph devoted to trite bromides that have a proven track record of being modded up despite being essentially content-free, e.g. "free software needs to innovate more instead of simply copying the innovations of others."
One paragraph moaning and groaning that the post will undoubtedly be modded down.
Then just sit back and watch the Karma roll in.
Sun has made significant contributions to Linux and even though it eats and erodes into their Solaris and systems sales, they don't go around whining about it. They are trying to adapt and remain relevant and not go out the way of so many other has-beens. Like Microdata, Dec et al ....
The industry needs to have a website where people can affirm that they will not buy any SCO product and endeavor to replace any existing SCO products they may have. A SCO Boycott.
A *Blacklist* seemed like a good idea, but perhaps one would be best off starting small.
You cannot supposedly embrace and sell Linux and slag it at the same time and still be considered to be credible. Sun comes out looking like a bunch of clowns when such statements are uttered by McNeally.
But let's be objective. It is a fact that Linux contributors have taken BSD code and header files, sometimes without attribution, sometimes stripping the BSD copyright notices.
Is it really impossible to believe that a Linux contributor didn't copy in a function or two from Unix (tm) source code? But then again, this is slashdot, where unfounded accusations that MS is using GPL code warrants a +5 informative.
SCO will need to shit or get off the pot, spit or swallow. But they could be right.
Yeah, Slashdot is so linux biased it can't even see the untruths it spouts off.
Linux is dead, face it.
Now what WOULD be cool is IF IBM were to win, and for the settlement, get ALL the rights to the UNIX source, and once and for all, make them GPL'ed !! And not have to pay a dime to SCO in the process ....
it was amusing for a while, but now this story is just a plain annoyance. IANAL, but SCO doesn't have a case and they know they don't. they can't even bring this to prelim to stop IBM shipping products in "violation" of their IP.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/06/16.html
stupid media should realize this case is lion vs. fly, and media is being used by SCO the fly as a vehicle to spread FUD. IBM and Linux have already suffered substantial damages from this baseless accusation. someone should do something to stop this nonsense.
I'm just hoping that the sleeping lion will soon stand up and smash the obnoxious fly into ditch. then I will applaud.
But this is just the part of SCO's argument that doesn't make any sense. IBM's original license from AT&T contains an amendment to the effect that any derivative works developed by IBM belong to IBM. This is a direct quote from the letter of amendment (Exhibit C in SCO's complaint filed with the court):
Regarding Section 2.01, we [AT&T] agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you [IBM] are owned by you.
The later agreement between IBM, SCO, and Novell specifies that, after a one-time payment from IBM to SCO, IBM has a fully paid-up, permanent, and irrevocable license.
Here's my take on what's going on here. I had a look at SCO's 10-Q filing with the SEC. It seems they are being sued over alleged securities fraud in connection with their IPO. I also noted from the Form 4 filings (insider transactions) that several of the senior people have been selling the stock in the last couple of months. I think this "litigation by press release" is all about trying to pump up the stock so the rats can get off the sinking ship.
(BTW, if you want to look at the agreements, they're on SCO's Web site.)
Of course, I'm probably wrong about all of this, but it's something to point out.
SCO makes me want to jerk off in an envelope and mail it to Darl MrBride's house. What a bunch of cunts.
You ought to take a look at what AIX actually costs. The last two RS/6000s I bought each came with an unlimited user license for AIX 5L that was listed as a line-item of each invoice as $270.
Hell, the annual maintenance I pay for AIX costs more than the purchase price!!!!
It's what it's called. Could they have explained it? Sure, but you'll find the term in major newspapers. The legal system uses latin quite a bit.
So by SCO's twisted logic, if you install a CD player in a car, all CD players become "derrivative works" of cars.
This isn't any ordinary darkness. It's advanced darkness.
So, apparently, everyone and their mother has System V sources and of course, we can all get the Linux sources. It sounds really trivial now to write a fuzzy diff program to figure out the similarities between the two source trees.
Unfortunately, I don't have the System V source, but if you can hook me up (loisel at math.mcgill.ca, http://www.math.mcgill.ca/loisel/) then I'll write the diff program and publish the results somewhere.
Sebastien Loisel
Bingo. As a Linux distributor, SCO was looking at Linux source code. SCO was also developing UnixWare. Now SCO's argument is that because you have access to the Unix source, anything you write into Linux is necessarily a derivative of Unix. So likewise, because SCO had access to the Linux source, anything they develop in UnixWare is a derivative of Linux. Oh, dear, I guess UnixWare is GPL now.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Their coming for us all!
The legal system uses latin quite a bit.
Mostly the latin I hear around the courthouse is along the lines of "ets-lay eek-snay outay or-fay a-ay inrk-dray ith-way at-thay ot-hay enographer-stay"
Either that, or "Judge X is a fucking horse's ass", although maybe the root on tat is a little more anglo-saxon in origin.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
...for not getting a blowjob from hallie berry.
Boy, talk about useless jibber jabber...
Without selling hardware, you'd have to give Unix away for FREE??? Damn! Microsoft better not hear about this.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Anyone play the board game risk?
The basic strategy is to conquer the world and with 4 players most of the time is spent deciding who is the largest threat to the whole and everyone attacks that one player.
The game would never end if it wasn't for the high stakes injected into the game to give players a boost strong enough to knock other players over.
When is someone going to anonymously reveal the alleged code? This is getting ridiculous. For crying out loud, already, tell us what it is so we can see it. At least tell us where.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I just finished the My Question section of the essay when it hit me:
Caldera/SCO has become infested with Vogons!
Well, that's what it seems like. We have a niche company that bought the Unix rights possibly as a lark(Hitchhiker's Guide), bought by another company(Infinidim) and suddenly their entire goal seems to be the destruction of Linux(The Question to Life, the Universe, and Everything) through the most convoluted manner possible(reverse time engineering)!
I was about to hit 'Preview' and I noticed something else - the adds across the top of my window are (in order) "Buy SCO OpenServer 5", "U.S. Legal Forms, Inc.", "SCO Unix and Linux help", and "Non Disclosure Forms"!
Those Belgium turlingdromes! They're everywhere!
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Wow!
SCO is going to try to corner everyone!
If you build unix, if you build on linux,
since someone else thought of the core stuff, then anything you think of from now on is SCO's
Oh my I had no idea they were this crazy?
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Right now, loading a dynamic library (but probably not loading an executable), and perhaps running on an OS (unless the licence allows this, as Linux's does), and statically linking, may all constitute creating a derivative work (IANAL). This uncertainty is a bad thing, and I think it would be better if the only way you could make a derivative work would by making a work that includes the original source code, not object code, output, etc.
Suppose IBM added something (b) to SCO's code(a), and SCO has a contract that they own derivative works (a+x). I think SCO then owns the derivative work (a+b), but if IBM wants to put it's code (b) in something else (c), SCO certainly doesn't own (c+b), because they had no part in it's creation, and (a) is not a part of it. Code can't be a derivative unless it includes what it derives from (in original or translated form).
Litigious bastards
"[SCO] said that until the parties go to court, it doesn't want the Linux community to remove the code in question. SCO thinks it's more than changing a few lines of code."
I'd bet a all the money I have that if that "offending" code was revealed tonight we'd have it all rewritten by Monday morning. The Linux community is more angry about this than anything that has ever touched it. All that anger would be unleached in an orgy of coding the likes of which even God has not seen.
SCO is afraid the reason for thier lawsuit will vanish is they reveal their hand.
"[SCO] feels large chunks are derivative. It argued that even a full replacement would be in part based on the prior effort, and thus would itself be derivative, at least under the terms of the IBM contract."
Sorry. no. It'd be easy to get around this. You tell me what code infriges and I'll post the input and expected output from that code (without even revealing where the code is). Any programmer who independently writes code that meets those requirements has NOT infringed SCO's licences.
The BBC reported today that IBM's License to Kill is perpertual and paid in full...
What kind of judge can be found that will not have some sort of bias? Whether it be anti-SCO for all the saber rattling, or anti-IBM for whatever reason.
As to the strength of SCO's case, shouldn't the research (all of it) been done before the announcement, so as to get into court in the fastest time feasible? If you want to beat IBM, don't give them time to react. That is a well documented tactic when dealing with "Big Blue."
Problem with that, is until this is settled one way or another, the pointy-haired-bosses who approve my technology architecture decisions, are likely to be put of from appropriate solutions due to the FUD.
I'm not sure giving SCO lots of money to go away sends the right message, but until they go away, it's complicating my proposals. *BSD is a subject I've wanted to bring up for some time, looks like that may be our new direction, at least until SCO goes away. This annoys me mightily, again more for reasons of principle than for technical reasons.
I admit that SCO's example unsettled me by what it implies. Although in itself trivial, it does suggest that some Linux contributors may have been careless about copyright infringement. That is unfortunate.
/. community that an overzealous programmer (not necessarily from IBM) might have copied copyrighted code into Linux?
I said it before: with all the rampant plagiarism going around in this day and age, why is it so unthinkable to the
IANAL, and I don't know what the implications are, but not only can I believe there is copyrighted code in Linux, I would actually bet there is copyrighted code (although not necessarily SCO's) somewhere inside the a Linux distribution.
Firstly, I am not a lawyer. Comments below are not advice, merely the ramblings of my mind. The analysis below assumes that SCO's allegations are limited to code such as JFS, NUMA, RCU and SMP all of which have clear non-SCO or open-source origins.
SCO is saying: any "modifications" or "derivative works" must be kept as part of the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT" (the SVR4 source code) in other words, kept confidential
IBM has taken the SVR4 code (the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT"), combined it with new, independently developed code and created a new work (let's call this "AIX"). That clearly makes "AIX" a derivative work, but does it also make the added code part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT? In other words, if you start with "A" and "B" (which are independently developed items) combine them together to form "C", this makes "C" a derivative of both "A" and "B", but SCO's argument is that it also makes "B" a derivative of "A".
On the other hand, the amendment (exhibit C) clearly spells out that IBM owns code that it develops or is developed for it. The question is, does this cover code developed by Sequent? I think so, but IANAL.
I think SCO's argument is: "you own it, but we control it" In other words, although ownership is with IBM, the confidentiality requirements still apply.
So SCO has to convince a jury that:
1. Independently developed code is part of the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT".
2. Even though IBM "owns" the code, SCO controls it. Since we are talking about IP and the only benefit of ownership of IP is control, this is going to be a very difficult argument.
Now, as to the injunction against AIX -- exhibit D clearly states that IBM's license is irrevokable, but Novell and SCO that does not stop Novell and SCO from enforcing their rights against IBM. The way I read this is that SCO can now ONLY get an injuction to stop any specific infringing behaviour. In other words, they cannot get an injuction against AIX, but only a much narrower injunction. Even if IBM is somehow infringing on SCO's license agreement by distributing AIX, once IBM fixes the infringement, IBM can resume distributing AIX. If SCO can prove any infringing behaviour, they may also get damages.
SCO also has some other problems in their case. Notably that enforcement of their contracts has been lax over the years.
What does this mean for Linux? Well, as I see it, it means that, assuming the disputed code is code that is owned by IBM, there is no way SCO can come after third parties. IBM has copyright on the code and once released publically, is no longer a trade secret. In other words, even if SCO might get damages, they cannot exert any further control over the code.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Now, I'm a Linux noob, but if I'm not mistaken, doesn't SCO (formerly Caldera) have/had a Linux distro? Therefore, they would be violating their own license.
Offtopic? Bullshit. He's right and it is at least tangentially related to what's going on here. And I (or my company) even buy quite a bit of MS crap. All big business is buying its freedom and all government is selling ours (the individuals'). If you don't see this, you're blind.
I've posted a message to Sun user group (usenet). Told what I think: what Sun was simply mean-spirited, not just 'opportunistic', and if this is the only business plan Sun has, I feel sorry for them.
The fact is that SCO is a mad dog biting everyone in site. What Sun is doing -- saying 'See, this dog hasn't bitten me yet! Good doggy!'.
Reaction on my posting was rather hilarious. Seems like all the responses came from Sun sockpuppets. The most intelligent response was 'Linux is for script kiddies'. In fact I even didn't mention LInux in my posting.
Funny, I have solid Sun experience, starting from Sun/OS 4.1.3 when it was BSD-based, before they move to Solaris 2.x (System V based), and I considered and still consider their product rather solid (Sun/OS 4.1.3 and 4.1.4, and SOlaris 2.5+), but frankly, I believe they've just lost the sense of directions, and unfortunately, taking advantage of current situation *is* the only business plan they apparently have. Sic transit gloria mundi.
"The short version is that SCO's claims are unproven, as indeed I expected would be the case before I went."
Nothing like having an open mind.
I live on a small island where news is scarce so I can understand the reporting of people's opinions as "news".
/. doesn't need to revert to this to fill the front page - if it does then I guess the IT economy really is in a bad state.
Normally news breaks followed by days of opinions and counter opinions until something else happens - be it on local radio or paper.
Surely
[)amien
That could still be the ultimate plan. The Unix source code will be a much cheaper purchase after obliterating SCO in court.
Not only that, but if IBM ultimately is awarded ownership of Unix, and they GPL the entirely of it afterwards, that in itself will royally screw over Sun (Solaris) HP (HP-UX) and probably Microsoft too, since they would have to GPL any of their code from that point onwards which was made from Unix. Sure their existing stuff would still fall under the closed source proprietary terms of their old license agreement for Unix, but what about the Solaris 10 or 11 would come after IBM's hypothetical GPL-ing of Unix is released?
A first line of defense - the USL settlement.
A second line of defense - CVS. Because the BSD's use source code control, if SCO were to say "IBM owns Whistle communications. Whistle contributed to the FreeBSD tree, egro IBM is a witch!^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hguilty of violating the NDA" Guess what? FreeBSD developers can look in the CVS tree, sort the code by date and author and re-write the code before any trial to show how trivial the alledged infringement is. If Linux had used actual software engineering tools, this could have been done and therefore free()ed of the SCO code before the trial. Alas, the best that can be done w/o knowing WHAT is infringing is to go back to Linux 1.X (or whatever the point where IBM became involved) and declare the code 'SCO free'
For FreeBSD has as a last line of defense - Who will you sue? The FreeBSD Foundation? Wind River? Apple? (Now, Jobs might be willing to be bought off, unlike IBM.)
So let SCO come. I'll be waiting, with my $1000 to give to the FreeBSD foundation to help defer the lawyer bills.
You think Windows is an original product?
How about MacOS?
Was Photoshop the first computer painting program?
Is that Hyundai you drive the first wheeled vehicle ever invented?
Hmmm...
The ratio of people to cake is too big
SCOX has $10 million in cash, and they lose at least $25 million every year. This case will take at least three years.
what if SCO goes bankrupt and their unix IP gets bought out by Microsoft?
IBM will have first dibs on them as first major creditor.
Because it is (mostly) true. The only thing you have wrong is MS's involvement. I used to be a low level civilian employee at the Pentagon.
There are two things at work here. First, is Orrin Hatch's Presidential bid for 2008. The fix is in. Hatch will be the next President. Bill Clinton introduced the first salvo in his speech that a President should be able to serve more than two terms. Bill Clinton was paid off because of his high legal bills. This is to get the people used to the idea of a President For Life. That's right. This is about bringing dictatorship to the US, and Orrin Hatch will be the first President For Life.
What does SCO have to do this? All computers will be running SCO software. No more Linux. No more OS X. No more Windows. Because so many countries are moving to Open Source, it will be impossible to get everyone using Windows, internationally. What the new government will get is a backdoor into every computer on earth. They are using SCO because a) it is UNIX, which is familiar to the Open Soure people and, b) they are using this case to supplant systems outside the US with SCO. Inside the US, forcing SCO on everyone will be a breeze.
The mysterious company you mention is Corel. That is why the DoD pulled funding for the Canadian OpenBSD, as Corel is a Canadian company.
This is the first time I've seen someone specifically say that the same programmers working on AIX are working on Linux. This can be very damaging for IBM depending on how their contracts with SCO are worded. Everything these coders write for Linux is tainted, since they have seen the AIX source, which is derived from Unix Sys V. SCO can now claim that any similar code originated based on ideas taken from Unix, and is therefore an illegal derivative based on agreements between SCO and IBM. If any code has patents, the case becomes stronger for the side holding the patents. Aside from outright copying of code, the strength of SCOs case will come down to the details in the agreements between SCO and IBM, as well as who owns which patents. Of course, any code copied outright is a copyright violation, and is a clear cut winner for SCO if it's significant and if they actually own the copyright.
Vote for Pedro
This sure doesn't look good.
------------
The Canopy group, ran by a guy named Noorda, appears to have investments in Trolltech and Linux Networks, as well as SCO.
http://www.canopy.com/portfolio/index.htm
Trolltech makes QT, upon which KDE is based. Trolltech has license which are free only for non-commercial development.
This is a bad connection.
Michael still doesn't know how to spell "Cringely." Jesus F. Christ, it's somebody's name. Have the courtesy to learn to type it properly.
"Make them attend Open Source conventions in a dunk tank. The possibilities are endless!"
Yup, I'd pay for that for sure.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
The real reason, of course, as to why SCO isn't showing anyone the code (and will likely try to keep it under wraps as much as possible) is that Linus might well excorsize those portions of the kernel, and they would be patched within days.
Then the judge would look at SCO and say, "Ok, so what's the problem now?"
-Adam
Let's have a little recap for SCOX (Santa Cruz Operation Unix).
GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix. GNU's Not Unix.
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
and it's another thing to take advantage of the situation which eventually Sun find itself in. Also please check the latest headlines: 'Sun accuses IBM in taking advantage of Linux'. Funny, eh? Yes, IBM is taking advantage of Linux. The fact is that Sun compaign is simply pathetic. Yes, this is capitalism, too, and SCO is capitalism too. So?
Does anyone know how long ago these "patents" were created? Unix is so old that I am having a hard time believing that they are still in effect.
"Uh-oh!"
**not funny unless this thread continues for another dozen posts or so.. *starts the inexplicable 70's music***
But if they can convince the judge the claim is legit.. they could single-handedly destroy the entire industry.
I personally think some of their claims *may* be valid and we shouldn't just dismiss it...
Some may be legit.. and it only takes ONE claim to be passed....
Its hard to believe they would do this with out thinking they had a chance to win.. they have done it before..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"O Lord bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy. "and the Lord did grin and people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orang-utans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and...
This is about the most insightful thing i've heard in years. Please, for love's sake, mod this insightful, or interesting. If you mod this funny, you must be laughing at something no one else sees. Christ, i swear they only give mod points to 10 year old children these days...
I'm looking out my window right now at the would be protesters. Now, the fact that these are the most pathetic looking protesters in history not withstanding there are a few reasons we all are having a good chuckle. Here, I'll list them for you:
1. SCO's building is tucked back in a business part with virtually no traffic. So, aside from the lawn care folks, they really aren't getting their message out to many people.
2. There is a camera man here from somewhere. He doesn't have a news badge or anything but the protesters are posing for him like he was Heraldo.
3. They seem to have focused their efforts on an empty wing of the building so no one at SCO can actually see them *shrug*
4. Do they really thing that anyone who makes the decisions (ie sue IBM) is watching? double *shrug*
5. Most of the participants will either want our jobs when they graduate or would be interviewing for one if we had an opening.
6. SCO's a company, public at that, not a government body subject to the will of the people. And we're not a retail store so you can't disrupt customer traffic so why the hell are you here? (I have a sneaking suspicion that the unnamed camera man has something to do with it).
7. Lets face it, 3:30 on a Friday afternoon isn't that productive anyway, so to have them to laugh at really has brightened up our day.
This is nothing more than a publicity stunt by some college kids who just finished finals. The people who make decisions aren't paying attention and the rest of us working stiffs are just trying to keep a job, like everyone else in this economy. I hope they are having fun, cause they certainly brightened my day. Especially the red head wearing the lamp shade in tight pants.
Sorry for posting Anonymous, I'm sure you all understand. Peace out.
My own feeling is that the only thing to be learned from this is our legal system is horribly flawed.
Didn't Microsoft base their Windows NT TCP/IP stack on code taken straight from BSD? Isn't there a whole bunch more in Windows taken from BSD? The license fees MS recently paid to SCO aside, what happens if SCO goes after MS and MS decides to buyout SCO?
I like to take walks too, but I don't tell everyone on /. about it.
Altogether, I'm not surprised at this action by Sun. What continually surprises me is that people view Sun as some kind of friend to open source software. The company is built on making open source software (Berkeley UNIX) proprietary, influential Sun employees like Gosling have a bad history with the open source movement, and Sun would like nothing more than to see Linux go away. One's enemy's enemy is not necessarily one's friend.
If the open source community isn't careful, what is happening with SCO and Linux now will happen with Sun and open source Java efforts in a few years. Sun will go down the drain, like SCO, they will get desparate, and they will almost certainly not disappear without lawsuits.
AIX seems to be stagnating. Mind you I don't get to see current versions so often - I get stuck with a version thats a couple or so years old. I can only talk about the announced features.
See my journal, I write things there
This if FUD of the most insidious kind. To quote "because SCO had access to the Linux source, anything they develop in UnixWare is a derivative of Linux" is something that Bill Gates et. all. would LOVE to have people believe on a large scale.
It would be every CTO's worse nightmare! Just by your techs LOOKING at Linux, all your code is now GPLed. That's total bullshit. Please read the GPL before posting (and moding up you damn moderators) these lies.
Why doesn't the Linux community simply offer SCO some *better* source code. I think there is a "linux" thingy out there that is better than the source code they have, and more mature. If we give them a copy of the kernel, with complete source code, will they shut up and go away?
Xerox has issued a cease and desist order. "SCO is infringing on our patent enforcment patents, we have several. They cannot continue without paying the aproriate license fees." -- Anonymous person found outside the Willsonville Oregon Xerox facility
The Mormon Church has a prominent role in SCO's biggest investor, The Canopy Group. Canopy is currently running the day-to-day operations of SCO. CEO Darl McBride and ex-CEO Ransom Love are Mormon.
Add to this, the $10 million that Micro$oft put into SCO in the way of "licenses." Yeah, right. If you believe that, I have fresh water from Great Salt Lake to sell you. Micro$oft won't have to get too involved in this one, though. This suit has friends in the highest places, people even more powerful than Bill Gates himself.
The lawsuit is in Utah. Utah is a Mormon theocracy. The judge reportedly assigned to the case is a Mormon bishop who, by definition, takes his orders directly from Temple Square (aka the Mormon Vatican or the Mormon Kremlin).
SCO has also hired prominent Mormon lawyers like Sen. Orrin "Kill the pirate PCs" Hatch's son. They also hired Friend of Bill Clinton David Boies, whom I don't believe is Mormon - proof that bedfellows do make strange politics.
Mormons live their lives (both personally and politically) according to the dictates of church leaders. There is as much questioning of the leaders' decisions as there was in the former Soviet Union. The only difference between the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il is that the Mormons don't torture and kill people. But if LDS hierarchy wants SCO to win, they will win.
Because of this, bet on SCO to win at least the first round. IBM's success depends on how many Mormon lawyers they hire and how well-connected in the church they are. IBM has very powerful lawyers, but if they aren't Mormon, they have little chance in Utah.
The article on Linuxjournal has been about the clearest article on the whole debacle I've seen yet. It says a number of things to me:
1.It takes someone involved with OSS to finally paint a somewhat clear picture of what this whole issue is about.
2.SCO seems to have some knowledge from the Monterrey project that IBM developers that were working there later became involved in Linux. To me this is perhaps the only real case SCO has got. They would have known who was developing on the IBM side and by scanning the Linux kernel mailing list might have seen those same names turn up. Hence SCO's case. However for SCO to actually prove anything beyond conjecture -which isn't admissible in court- will prove extremely difficult, as the author says. The presented code that SCO has been showing the NDA signees is possibly taken form Unix (SysV) or AIX but is very likely to be some sort of common use code that exists in just about every OS known. If the code is a ubiquitous as the author feels, then it is likely that the court will not rule in SCO's favour. That would be the death knell for SCO because it would open the doors for just about everyone on the earth to sue SCO for issues ranging from code theft to harrasment.
3.SCO is mainly creating a fog of war in order to frighten people, just as IBM is claiming.
4.I am less worried know than I was before I read the article.
The worst possible outcome, is that, with the current US government using the fear of terrorism weapon as an excuse to invade countries, ruin the economy, support corrupt corporations, that the court would in fact rule in SCO's favour. The outcome of that would almost certainly be that IBM will use it's patents to sue SCO on hundreds of accounts and will certainly appeal the case until it gets to the supreme court. I am pretty sure that SCO would eventually lose, but the damage to OSS in the USA would be done. The court procedings will have minimal effect outside the the USA. I am pretty sure that no European court will give any chance to SCO of winning a case against an OS that was origionally developed in Finland and is a major source of income in Germany (SuSE). It would be interesting in this case to see if a software split would occur, with software developement in the USA totally encumbered by legal issues, leaving only Microsoft able to peddle it's wares with success there, and OSS taking over outside the USA . Of course this is only conjecture and speculation.
I was shown a little of the copied code. Admittedly, I can't tell you what I saw, but I did form the opinion that it was not in the kernel proper. In all probability, the code is more important to Silicon Graphics' Altix servers than to average x86 Linux users.
Ugh.. Altix is Itanium (AKA ia64.) This sounds very much like the code I pointed out yesterday. (ate_utils.c in Linux -vs- malloc.c in versions of Unix up to at least System3)
A couple of things people have pointed out about why the example I found should be legit:
(1) It's in BSD... No, I'm no expert on BSD history but from what I've read the settlement happened between BSD 4.3 and 4.4. Anything prior to 4.4 probably doesn't count since the whole reason BSD won is that they had rewritten all of the code. BSD3 contains pretty much an exact copy of malloc.c from Sys3, but the version in 4.2 looks newer than the version SGI used. I'd assume it's even more different in BSD 4.3 and 4.4.
(2) The code is common knowledge. This same form of malloc has been around longer than the C language. This sounds good, but it's hard to believe the code was written independently. The comments, structure, and variable names seem a bit too much to be coincidence.
(3) Caldera released the code for all versions of Unix prior to and including Sys3 under a BSD-style license. This is definitely the best argument, but SGI didn't include a "(c)Caldera 2001" in the file. The dates in SGI's copyright statment in that file are also out of line with the date of the Caldera offer, and it's easy to show that ate_utils.c was around prior to 23 Jan 2002. (Check the 2.4.17 ia64 port on Kernel.org)
The real question is why would SGI use versions of malloc and free that trace their lineage all the way back to 1973 Bell Labs when there are untainted, free, and better written versions of these functions available.
Why do you picture Linux developers as morons?
Fry: Four identical castles!
Bender: Each more identical than the last!!
-
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
A proposal: if SCO is pissing you off, buy SCO stock. The more they're pissing you off, the more SCO stock you buy.
If enough of us do this, we can act in concert as shareholders, toss McBride & his henchmen out on their asses, and free Unix ourselves.
What we have to do is *organize*. I posted the following proposal to slashdot (it was rejected, probably because it was too controversial) and the gist was that SCO's share price (ticker symbol SCOX) has gone up 1400% on rumors and FUD. Now SCO may have a case, they may not have a case, but the least that should happen is an investigation by the SEC into the facts surrounding this incident.
Here's a SEC link that lets you enter a complaint. Hell, if SCO gets enough heat from this, they may divulge all. We deserve, as a community, to be able to evaluate their gripe objectively, and that requires full disclosure by SCO of what their gripe is. SCO's failure to do so is *hurting our livelihood* - and at the least it is libelous.
Anyways, below is the text of the original submission. I'm hoping to get it on the head Slashdot page, so if you could submit it as a story, I think it would do us all a favor. (Note to slashdot editors - a 'soapbox' icon would be very nice... something which allows users to post controversial stories like this whilst having a disclaimer so slashdot can keep its nose clean)
original submission:
I just read the vaguely demeaning forbes article describing the complacency of the linux community, and believe me, this "crunchie" wasn't pleased, at either a) being called a crunchie for having the ethics to be upset about what SCO is doing, or b) for being labeled as ineffective and powerless.
The truth is, the open source community isn't powerless. The whole SCO incident has a very bad smell to it, and what they are doing (and the consequent effect on their stock price) is in my opinion highly unethical if not illegal. I am not a lawyer (or SEC official for that matter) but their stock price has jumped from 60 cents to $11 per share, in dubious circumstances... so in my opinion at the very least the SEC should be notified about the unsavory aspects of it and other pieces of background info so they can do an investigation and find out the facts for themselves.
So - I think the open source community should take a stand. If you don't like what SCOX is doing, here is the sec complaint form where you can submit evidence, background facts, personal knowledge, and - if you think so - your opinion about how malfeasant SCOX's actions are and the damages that they are doing. (Any info about how SCOX insiders are capitalizing on the stock price would be especially helpful.. personally, its the element I find most distasteful of all, and if they find manipulation, its information the SEC can directly use.)
How many people read slashdot? How would the SEC handle 500,000 complaints? Only time would tell - but I think at the minimum it would warrant an investigation, possibly even a class-action suit.
Anyways, if you are going to submit, please be civil about it. The worst thing possible would be for the SEC to get lots of long-winded rants - they want courteous dialog and accurate information they can use, not a vitriolic screed of profanity. ( A long finding of fact and QA on what is found would also help, so they don't hear misinformation and hear the pertinent information loud and clear... but that's what slashdot discussions are for aren't they?? :) )
SCO's "experts" have also found sections of code which SCO believes have been obfuscatedâ"where the order of code execution has been rearranged in a direct attempt to hide its SCO pedigree.
SCO has a pedigree? SCO is like one of those mule clones. Whichever way you look at it, it's an abomination.
I wonder if people that visit SCO these days grin when they take a nasty dump in a bathroom there.. :P
Remember - this weeks version of SCOs complaint is a contract matter between SCO and IBM. Copyright is NOT the issue. The code is not the issue. Linux is not the issue. The code is a blind.
/usr/src/uts/uts for all to see.
What SCO want to do is invalidate all existing Unix licenses so that all Unix rights revert to SCO. By then arguing that ALL Unix-like code is a derivative work they will claim that all unix-like code, no matter who wrote it, is actually SCOs.
By this means SCO hopes to profit from the work of hundreds of thousands of coders who worked for no pay on the original AT&T Unix, BSD Unix, Linux etc as well as all the commercial developement done by IBM, HP, SGI etc etc.
But SCOs entire argument is based on the "trade secret" that is the Unix sources. If anyone can show that SCO and previous owners of the rights to Unix sources have NOT taken care of their trade secret, SCO has NO case whatsoever. This is what ESR is doing right now by gathering evidence that Unix source code was widely available to people who did not sign any NDA at the time.
Fortunately, it's almost trival to discover evidence that Unix code has been widely available during the 1990s. Many commercial releases of Unix back then included source. For example, Amdahls UTS was a Unix for the IBM390 including multiprocessor support that was distributed widely with the sources in
BTW I suspect that it was Fujitsu, not SUN, that was the other big unix company that recently bought a license from SCO...
I'm confused. I dont know if I should be proud that the All Your Base joke has goten so far that its now considered mainstreme for Byte.com to use it as a subtitle for the SCO artical, or if I should hide under a rock in a dark corner cause its become so mainstreme...
It could be worse though, "All Your Unix Are Belong To $C0..."
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
if I do say so myself.
The interesting thing is the stock prices at the bottom of the page. SCO down, Sun down, and IBM up.
SCO visits YOU
oh,
wait a second, that's this country! Never mind.
Netcraft!
:)
Linux!!!
One substantive change is that because the case is now in Federal rather than state court, we can now request a finding in some general IP-law issues relevant to this case, including confirming the validity of the GPL.
Now wouldn't that be huge if a federal court confirmed it.
You tend to forget that Linux is not a US product and that the US legislation does not apply outside your borders. So whatever crap your tribunals may decide, the world will remain the same. Only US will shoot themselves in the foot by applying a Linux tax ... well , the evolution of mankind is not for someone who has the Bush dinasty deciding where to bomb today ;)
Linus, come back to Finland !!!
"Freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. -Reagan "
When you think of how Reagan and friends have labored to protect wealth and privillege, that comment is a stinging self indictment... but I'm sure the irony would be lost on most people...
People have chosen OSS and the GPL.... SO they can get the fuck away from the closed minded!!!!
Majority rules here. Public choice!
Anyone guilty of tampering with that is guilty of anti-trust.
SCO has lost no money even if their code appear to be in the Linux source.
They have no case against IBM acussing IBM of harming SCOs income.
It's simple, people made the choice to get away from the closed minded.
And SCO cannot force Consumer choice to be what they want it to be. Neither can MS.
EVERYONE can see & copy the Linux source.
Nearly NO ONE can see & copy SCO's source.
Like I've said to others, if it's so damn easy for SCO code to get into Linux then give me an URL to the relevant code so that I try some "contaminating" of my own.
A "crime" requires OPPORTUNITY.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
While, SCO's claims seem to be destined to fizzle out eventually, I fear they may have caused enough damage by then. This will give fodder to anti-linux lobbby claiming this is something that would never happen with a proprietary. Yeah, Linux may be great, but look at "these problems" with "this kinda software".
MS is already in hot water too over the Timeline patent lawsuit they just lost, so your argument holds no basis. MS's SQL customers may suddenly find that they're running illegal SQL server software and will be shaken down for lots of money by Timeline. Will MS just stand by the wayside and let that happen? We're going to find out shortly.
you are correct. I re-read the post and it turns out my knee jerked and I ended up with my foot in my mouth.
This whole sco thing has just got me pissed off and wanting to yell at someone. Sorry Wylfing, but since this is slashdot, I suppose noone is to suprised....
It's called an Apple Mac. ... I'm a Mac fan by the way,
As from the article, SCO hates BSD too, if SCO wins, and they decide to go after BSD, they will also be taking on Microsoft, since the entire Microsoft TCP/IP stack is based off of BSD's implementation.
Apparently, SCO owns everything worthwhile in the last 20 years of computer technology, TCP/IP, and heck, probably even the OSI 7 layer model!
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
I certainly hope so. We're also in a bit of a tightrope, because this may circumscribe the GPL.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
After reading the article I was more than a little surprised by the outright arrogance of SCO in pursuing a "Linux Licensing" arrangement. It's called Open Source for a reason, retards.
IF the Linux code is found to infringe on SCO copyrights and WHEN that code is revealed in court does SCO not realize that in about five microseconds the infringing code will be modified/altered/removed to suit the findings of the court? I seriously doubt we'll ever make it this far, but SCO has to be stupid to think the Linux community will just roll over and say, "Oh yeah, here is a heap of cash we owe you", without looking at maintaining the integrity of Linux and the OSS community.
Make them attend Open Source conventions in a dunk tank.
:-)
At the LCA conferene in perth , Australia this year , Linus specifically requested a "dunk tank" , so we could have a go at getting him wet.
Hopefully the Adelaide LCA organisers can set this up
[...]to copy any features from AIX to Linux, even those features developed fully under the payroll of IBM, is copyright infringement.
I may have figured out a good enough of an analogy for this. So far no such thing has come across my view, and I've been reading the story of this farce since beginning.
Suppose SCO was a building contractor. They build several houses and apartments, which they sell on. They are entitled to keep their original blueprints, in case they needed to build a set of similar houses in near future. Families buy the houses and apartments and start to live in them. In the years, they each find out that certain things need improvements - that could be the plumbing, or they could find out that certain cupboards are better off removed. They also go on to change the new and better windowing.
Some 8-10 years later the contractor appears once again and announces they have absolute rights to all of the buildings and apartments. Hence, they also claim that all the modifications the tenants have made during the years are their property. Thus, the contractor requires all of the tenants to pay the contractor a set amount of cash for their right to still live in their homes and use all the modifications they have paid themselves for.
If I were one of the tenants and even not the original buyer of the apartment in question, I for one would be infinitely pissed. The claims would be both unbelievably stupid and something that several laws would protect me against. I suspect there is something fundamentally awry in my analogy, so please enlighten me what I have missed.
There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
They seem to think that, since IBM put their code into the GPL, that this prevents their code from actually BEING GPL'd...even if THEY release linux too!
Look. There is an untainted kernel release, let's call it K. It's various parts are copyrighted by various contributors, and the whole thing is licensed under the GPL.
There are a few patches that went into the next version. Let's call those A, B and C. Their copyrights are held by private individuals and licensed to Linus under the GPL (when they sent the patches in).
There is also a contribution by IBM. Let's assume SCO are telling the truth, and IBM based part of this work on SCO's IP. Let's call this S.
Now, it's perfectly feasible that the contract between SCO and IBM allows IBM to incorporate S into their closed-source products.
By default, this would not allow IBM to incorporate S into a GPLed product, since the GPL covering the rest of the software would have to apply to the derivative work as a whole, and IBM can't just relicense S at will.
So, when IBM sends those patches off to Linus, they cannot offer the code freely.
When Linus releases the next version of the kernel, he has incorporated K, A, B, C and S into a derivative work. Let's call this K++.
K++ is distributed in the normal fashion. The GPL is slapped all over it, and all sorts of different vendors incorporate this into their products. SCO is one of these vendors.
Despite this, the GPL does not apply to K++. Linus has no right to release K++ under the GPL, nor even freely offer copies. He's not the sole copyright holder of K, and he doesn't hold the copyrights to A, B or C either. He has to abide by the GPL - which means that the derivative work as a whole is either under the GPL, or cannot be freely distributed (unless he works out licensing with every single kernel contributor, a logistical improbability).
Since IBM cannot offer S under the GPL, Linus cannot offer K++ under the GPL, and any license SCO had to offer K++ under the GPL is void. They are infringing on the copyrights of everybody who contributed to K++ when they distribute it.
Now, just because the original IP was theirs, it doesn't mean they can arbitrarily reinstate that license for K++. They have to go back to their original contract with IBM to set the whole chain up again. Otherwise, they would have to obtain all the changes (A B and C) between K and K++ to "branch" the kernel. Remember, they can't obtain them directly from K++, as that is not licensed under the GPL. They have to go around and pick up the pieces, many of which will have just gone straight to Linus' inbox and will not be available to them. Remember, they need valid licenses to these bits under the GPL. Just to make matters worse, they would have to do the same for each new version of the kernel (as, according to them, the subsequent derivative works, (K++)++ and ((K++)++)++, cannot be licensed under the GPL. We can basically assume that they cannot do this.
So, we have to ask which is the best option, in SCO's eyes? Cease production of their unprofitable Linux distribution, admit to copyright infringement against a bunch of kernel hackers who are unlikely to bring suit against them, and be able to sue IBM for billions of dollars? Or grant IBM the contract so they can keep the Linux distribution, sit back and watch their business fade away?
None of this is contrary to the GPL. However appalling it seems to us, remember that their board of directors have an obligation to their shareholders to maximise profits (or risk due diligence lawsuits). This is a massive get-out option for their Linux division that they are taking advantage of (and attempting to bail out the rest of the company with).
Of course, this all depends on the crucial axiom that IBM screwed up, which I think is unlikely, especially from SCO's actions regarding this lawsuit. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the GPL is not at all a problem for SCO here.
as for apple's offering,
it mightn't be so much the freebsd exposure
(despite dickinson debevoise's dicta)
as the history of mach, which shows the
influence of system five in various geneologies.
This guy is a very good writer.. I love some of his lines, like "For SCO to attack IBM using IP is somewhat like trying to eat a live tiger."
Heh!
My intuition suggests that MS has helped SCO to finance the battle because they're curious to see if SCO can pull it off. If they can, it's a win for Microsoft because now the GPL is beatable and Linux has a major strike against it in the courts. If SCO loses, MS can simply wipe the dirt off their hands (from handing SCO the cash) and claim that the GPL is more dangerous now than ever and SCO has only proven how damaging it can be! In either case, Microsoft wins and doesn't worry about losing any significant amounts of money on SCO (such as buying them out now would prove).
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
First, on derivative works. SCO's apparent expansive definition is clearly wrong. From 17 USC 101:
While the section starts with "based on", it then clarifies with categories. The categories all show that this clearly contemplates something that contains intellectual property from the original work. Then there's the terms "recast, transformed, or adapted" - clearly add-ons involve none of these transformations, so the question is whether the alleged derivative contains original IP. Computer Associates v Altai clearly indicates that program interfaces are not part of the intellectual property. Thus the claim against stuff "added to" UNIX by others is derivative is a complete non-starter.
Second, the claim that the contract with IBM expands on the definition of derivative work is completely irrelevent to Linux. IBM could lose, but nobody other than IBM and SCO are parties to the contract, and thus nobody else can be held to it.
ILT's descriptions of the other stuff make it sound extraordinarily weak too.
The stuff about not wanting violations removed from the kernel before the trial is extremely suspicious. This will clearly give rise to an estoppel against anybody they try to sue over use and copying in the interim, and in any case common law principles regarding failure to mitigate the damages would clearly apply to prevent damages being awarded for such use. Removal of the IP from Linux would not affect the IBM case as regards stuff that happened before such removal. It would also mean they've contributed to the continued public exposure of their alleged trade secrets, thus seriously undermining their trade secrets case - it is the information itself that gets protection as a trade secret, not its identification with SCO. There is no legal reason why they would take the course of avoiding the IP being removed from Linux before the trial.
I'm also seriously questioning the validity of the NDA - it is likely that they made representations that the person signing the NDA would be given relevant information to assess the validity of SCO's claims - in fact I'm sure they did so in the media. Clearly this was a real inducement to enter into the NDA - in fact ILT basically said so. Yet it seems the meeting was carefully constructed to prevent ILT from being able to reliably make any such assessment. Assuming the foregoing, the contract could be set aside by a court for fraud.
In my assessment, this is starting to look more and more like an elaborate bluff. The legal theories that are leaking from SCO are just plain ludicrous. Their behaviour with the NDAs and the limited information given to people who sign them suggest there was never any intention to have a real assessment of the merits.
I'm both a top notch coder and a top notch law student, and I'd seriously like to go a couple of rounds with the SCO executives and their lawyers to get to the bottom of this, but there's no way with the NDA - at least not in that form. The rules of equity should be adequate protection anyway.
derivative works IBM contributed to Linux include NUMA, RCU, JFS, SMP
:). I derived none of my drivers from existing DOS source code, just book samples. I could give away my source and binaries for free without Microsoft owning them even though it was "thier" technology. If anything, the Watcom compiler I used to build the driver(s) had more restrictions placed upon me than Microsoft's OS license (FYI, royalty free distribution on the binary, not the libraries).
If none of these technologies were derived from existing SCO/AIX source code, doesn't that mean that it cannot be a derivative?
Case in Point. Back in the 80's, I wrote several device drivers for MS DOS. Microsoft published the specifications on how to do this in books (so did Peter Norton
If I recall, IBM uses thier own compiler with AIX to build binaries. Does not the AIX compiler license overide the OS license? Does SCO even own a compiler? What comes first, the OS, the enhancement (feature), or the implementation?
Food for thought, enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I think it's obviously they are claiming (2), as RCU was patented by Sequent (patent now expired), so to this extent at least, I agree with the original poster.
Be aware of general IP law issues, and having read most of the available documents, I do not think this claim will fly (I am not a lawyer though), however, that said, I still think it is potentially a brilliant ploy by SCO.
I think that they will try and claim: Code that builds on GPL, must itself by GPLed, why should SCO not get the same treatment? (I'm not saying this argument holds water, just they'll argue it)
i.e. SCO will say
X+GPL=Y means X and Y are GPLed
X+SCO=Y should therefore mean X+Y are SCOed
In truth, this argument doesn't work, because if I create X and use it a GPL product to make Y, there is nothing to stop me also using X in a non-GPL app. (and the same applies when X is used with SCO). If this was not the case, then ALL application customizations, and indeed ALL applications, would automatically belong to the OS owner (i.e. Microsoft would own all Windows app, etc.)
But even though this argument doesn't work, SCO might hope the jury will buy it, on the basis of "fairness" [i.e. GPL works like this, therefore SCO deserve same treatment].
Hopefully, the judge would rule on this (and the right way!) before it got to the jury, as this is a matter of law, not evidence.
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It
SCO, shut up and show us the code.
http://securityportal.com.ar
But what about BSD?" I asked. Sontag responded that there "could be issues with the [BSD] settlement agreement," adding that Berkeley may not have lived up to all of its commitments under the settlement.
I wonder who he means by "Berkeley". The BSD settlement was with BSDI, now part of Wind River Systems and the NetBSD and the FreeBSD projects, the latter represented by Chris Demetriou and Jordan Hubbard respectively.
"So you want royalties from FreeBSD as well?" I asked.
Sontag responded that "there may or may not be issues. We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all subsequent computer operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual property)."
Ok now that we have that out of the way. Please recall MacOS X is based on NeXT which in turn is derived from BSD (somewhere along the line). Perhap you recall who runs Apple computer these days. Steve Jobs, NeXT was his baby. If IBM doesn't grind SCO into a smooth paste Steveie certainly will.
As a friend put it "do not make Steve summon the dark lords of unix"
shut up. asshat.
I guess I find this whole thing kinda scary, but for a different reason.
If any time you look at another peice of code, and then code something similar you are making a dirivative work - how much proprietary software should be covered by the GPL? This would mean that because I studied how Linux did scheduling, I couldn't ever work with any type of scheduling ever without GPLing it. It could even be taken to mean that anyone who has ever looked at GPL'd code could never develop proprietary software!
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that all of this has some scary consequences - not just for Linux. Sounds like I need to get a Law degree and work for the FSF, that's where the real money is going to be in the future :)
That's where all the contention is going to be. Check it out for yourself:
SCO Lawsuit Page
The Exhibit that I want to see is the contract between IBM and SCO for Project Monterey. There are three possibilities:
(1) IBM and SCO did not sign a contract for Monterey.
(2) There is a contract, and it's favorable to SCO.
(3) There is a contract, and it's favorable to IBM.
Possibility (1) is unlikely, considering that Monterey was a huge project for SCO, and that IBM doesn't start projects of any size at all without a contract for the IP rights.
Possibility (2) is unlikely, because SCO makes no reference to such a contract in their complaint or their amended complaint.
Which means that it's very likely that IBM will pull out a Project Monterey contract and it's going to be support IBM's position even more than Exhibit C already does.
If you have a copy of the Lions Book, flip to line 2527. Then look at lines 87 through 205 of /usr/src/linux/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c .
atefree and atealloc are verbatim copies of UNIX 6th Edition's malloc and free. The only changes are mapping the ancient C compilerism "=+" to "+=", some comment changes, some ASSERTs, and a spinlock. The code is undeniably copied.
but it looks to me that SCO is asserting that they own unix AND anything that even remotely resembles it.
After all, as the author points out, pretty much everything in current software is a derivative of what's gone earlier.
Using this argument, surely:
- Perl is derived from C, sed, awk, etc.
- Ada (design commissioned by US DoD, no less) is derived from Pascal, Algol and many others
- virtually every procedural language is derived from Algol
- MS Windows and the Mac UI are derived from X Windows and/or Xerox PARC's work (not 100% sure about the sequence of these, but the point still stands if the list has to be reordered)
- (add other examples till you get tired of it)
My point is that this is an entire industry built on "standing on the shoulders of giants". Nobody, *nobody* creates anything entirely from scratch.
Ridiculous derivations aside, I'd have thought that if SCO's (re-)definition of "derivative works" stands up, then surely all x86-based servers would be derived from IBM's original PC. After all, that's tangible hardware you can put your hands on such that a relative layman could see obvious derivations, not a bunch of lines of code where any proof of illegal copying is going to depend on accepting CVS-type logs as solid evidence. If the US legal system holds this to be true, then that could be used to kill off all non-IBM x86 hardware development since the early 1980s.
God forbid that Ada Lovelace's (frequently credited as "the first programmer") descendants read this rubbish and call their lawyers for a chat...
from a cnet article:"So why can't they just reuse their own products? They can't, because SCO controls the rights over further licensing of derivative products. (Only Sun Microsystems, which has paid around $100 million to the various Unix stewards over the past decade for derivative rights, fully controls the legal destiny of its products.) It's an inconvenient legalism--and one not always discussed in the lab--but it exists."
So based on what the poster was told by SCO, they have a strong case, particularly given AIX programmers were involved in writing Linux code.
Vote for Pedro
So, could SCO be saying that anything written in C or C++ or... wait, how about C#, is also a derivative work of Unix.
In that case, why stop there, you can pretty much sue everybody under that assumption.
I think, just like the author has mentioned, they cannot really get a decent case against Linux. All we have to do is a source compare on one of those old Caldera distros. And if it turns out there - well, SCO has distributed the source code themselves... Did people actually use caldera?
And since they are claiming that JFS and SMP and other components contributed to Linux by IBM are coming from AIX, that remains just an assumption. Do they have a source for AIX? Of course they don't, i hope they don't. Good luck proving that one, buddy!
Goot times!
20 years down the track, one of my kids becomes incredibly rich due to hard work, clever investments and so on.
Why wouldn't I be able to claim he or she as a "derived work" of mine, and loot their bank account?
Suddenly old age stretches out before me like a path of gold...
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch5.html the United States Copyright Law. I dont understand it all and I dont know much about kernel development or the history but there has to be some sort of clause in there to use against SCO.
IIRC, (and it's been a while since I read Roman history)
the Roman Senate did not "make" or "write" laws. Instead they "discovered" them, the theory being that through study and observation of society, imutable rules of civil order could be gleaned.
It's no mistake that Common Sense and the concepts of Common Law tend to be so similar, because law should not only make sense, but also reflect the needs of civil order and society.
I think an interesting "distributed" project would be to pour over the mountain of legal codes (which tend to read similarly to most programming languages, imo) and build a new "kernel" of law that makes common sense.
Gerbils gay-bars Stun-guns
and SCO execs
Mix and match
Quoting from the Miriam Webster Website:
"a volcanic crater that has a diameter many times that of the vent and is formed by collapse of the central part of a volcano or by explosions of extraordinary violence."
They bought SCO, and are now living up to their name...
SCO ... is just trying to sue (part of) what drove them out of business!
This is not the same SCO. What we're dealing with now, is relates directly to the story line of Star Wars which I'll outline here for you.
Darl Mcbride has been possessed by some evil force and in a plot to take over the universe, have launched a lawsuit headed by David Boies against IBM who seems to so far be the strongest ally Linux has at this point. It is thus far unclear what role Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, or Richard Stalman will play. It is also unclear who will play Luke, or the chick
Whatever the merits of the case, the Linux community should not take the SCO suits lightly.0 618linux.h tml
http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_
cheers- raga
I'm glad we've given SCO exclusive patent / copyright to.. ummmm... their Unix invention... It's really progressing science... Well it's progressing the useful... art.. ummm .. of bullsh*t.
"We [SCO] believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all subsequent
computer operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V."
Even if SCO's broad derivation theory were held by the courts to be true, they own nothing. Why? Because UNIX is itself derived from Multics in precisely the way that Linux is derived from UNIX.
In other words, using their own theory, no case whatsoever can be made for SCO owning the intellectual rights to any OS, including UNIX System V.
How could the removal of the code from the current Linux kernel possibly matter in their case against IBM? If IBM did it, they did it. Changing the kernel code to remove the [potentially?] offending code can't change that. Their suit would be just as valid if tomorrow all that code was removed from the kernel.
They think that by leaving the code undisclosed and therefore in the Linux kernel they'll be able to say that if you're running Linux, you're using our code and so you must buy a license. That's such a bizarre concept, that I'm unable to come up with even a mediocre analogy to explain it.
Can anyone think of either an analogy for this *or* another reason why they want to leave the code in?
Also, they've critized Linus' ability to track where IP that ends up in the Linux kernel comes from. How do they plan to account for all the IP that has entered "their" codebase over the past 20 years?
A general comment:
/. posts about code and THEN compiled them? Would the compiled code be derived from /. or SCO? Would I need a /. license to shrinkwrap the end product just because I read it on /.? If not, then what makes SCO so special? Because they are group of people in a "company" and /. is a group of people in a "community"? Where does that really take you?
As I watch this unfold, I am suddenly aware of how far this case is starting to reach. Is everything really derived of everything else? Do fleas have littler fleas that bite them, and so on ad infinitum?
Then where does it end? Can there ever be a clear break between what is watercooler theorizing about what might work and what is eventually compiled?
Because if my random thoughts at the bar&grill on a Saturday afternoon are indeed open-source until I compile them Monday morning and then they are derived from the source, including any SCO source code I looked at the day before, then what if I got my ideas from reading
I don't think there are many legal minds who would buy into the idea that nothing can belong to more than people (as opposed to companies who hire people) BUT that does not mean they are correct. Teachers, for example, would strongly disagree as they are in the business of open-source that we call learning by discussion.
Even if the laws remain the same, I sense the damage is done. We've long wondered what would be the long-term impact of the OSS movement, and much has been written and said. But do we really "know" where it will end? What hath we wrought?
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Wait, but on this same argument, the former Bell Labs coders could come out of the woodwork, tell everyone to bite them, and take everything that is Unix related anyhow, because it is derivative of their original code that they came up with. Even though AT&T owned Bell Labs, that doesn't necessarily give them the right to the original intellectual property of the coders (ie- the first first beta. They sold them a finished product, not the beta. And the beta is the foundation... sooo everything technically is derivative of that.) Secondly, SCO is going downhill anyhow in the Linux world since they tried to sell Linux Enterprise server licenses for 1000 bucks a pop, did United Linux (what happened with that?) Finally, I don't think this article broke any of the agreements he signed in the NDA. He didn't specifically leak any information that people already knew, nothing about code, anything that would be used in litigation, or anything that the company keeps "confidential". Yeah, RedHat, where are you? Please buy SCO and kill the tight grip on Unix. Or maybe everyone should get together, contribute 20 bucks, and the license to Unix can be owned by the world. BROHAHAHA!
"Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky"-Pink Floyd
The Linux kernel is published using GPL Version 2, and not any later version. Lines 130 to 138 of the GPL used by Linus clearly state:-
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Note the second sentence beginning "But when you ..." Thus the whole of UnixWare is now subject to the GPL.
Therefore one can only come to the conclusion that the shakers and movers in SCO are betting to company, and their shareholders' investments, to squeeze the last two drops out of the third hand lemon which they so stupidly picked up when it was flicked on to them, while considerably increasing their personal wealth at the same time. I thought that this was 'insider trading' and considered criminal behaviour? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see this exercise as another 'Enron'.
No direct links to Eric Levenez's server to save it from meltdown, but you all know how to find the details.
I was looking at this link, http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco-sontag-16jun2003.htm l. Read over the part about JFS on OS/2 versus AIX. SCO are going to lose their fight with IBM, and then use the arguments against their position to contest the validity of the GPL.
No text...
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
SCO has no code!
This is posted A/C and I'm sure it will be written off as flamebait.
However, after reading this post, how is SCO's purported license different from the GPL? It sounds like SCO may have one of the first "viral" licenses (using the Borg's term).
If the GPL is legal, then SCO's license has to be legal also.
Judge a company by its products or services, not by its C.E.O.
man tunefs | grep fish
"I asked whether SCO has any plans to license the Unix code to Linux users, to remove the liability. SCO said it has no current program. It hopes to come up with something in which noncommercial use and educational use would be free, but for commercial use it wants some remuneration. SCO said it hadn't come up with a plan because it still is trying to figure out the scale of the problem. SCO hopes to have some sort of solution by as early as July. "
Oh, I get it now. SCO can't make it buy just selling it's own pathetic OS so it is trying to steal Linux.
I really can't comment further without the use of profanity.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
They may win as a fluke, we all know SCO is in fantasy land,let's pray the judge n jury aint. Also, if they lose they can write the whole thing off in their taxes. The SEC and IRS should investigate SCO, before they either rip off the government or rip off corporations which are trying to hold our economy up.
All the big corporations IBM,Linux vendors,Apple are spending money to prepare a defense.
I was scrolling almost till the end of the slashdot main page, and saw no SCO threads... I was beginning to worry.
Now I feel much better. Thanks.
If it was eventually ruled (well, you can hope) that SCO had effectively GPLed their own code by distributing it with Linux, then your signature would be incredibly apropos.
I suggested that SCO should change the NDA to permit the disclosure of information when legally required by a court
How the hell can an NDA be enforced when giving evidence in court. I didn't think the bloody oath had "subject to contract clause", no I thought you just had to tell the truth when asked a question.
Witholding information is no different to lying.
There is something seriously wrong here, and I'm not just talking about SCO.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
What is SUN thinking???
Abusing this case with all its faults as a marketing opportunity against IBM, who has all the community support? I have never ever seen a better case of business suicide (except maybe SCO). Before this I still had some respect for SUN despite all their blunders. I hope and believe that when the smoke clears here we will have two businesses less to consider in the UNIX world, and they both start with an S.
> Perl ... C ... Ada ...
... IBM !
Fortunately, Fortran is an original work,
by (drum roll)
Is this Ian Taylor the person who wrote "Taylor UUCP"? If so, then it is interesting that he is writing about SCO.. as way back when I was originally doing some admin work on SCO Unix, the SCO UUCP software was the first thing I replaced with Taylor UUCP as the SCO version was an absolute pile of rubbish (whereas Taylor UUCP was fast and error-free, more than twice the speed).
At least with a judge there was a chance for an intelligent result.
With a jury anything is possible.... And in these days, mostly insanity from brainless fools that have zero clue..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
when sco is right we can trade the kernel source as damn hot warez. cewl.
Nah, put them "where the action is," in true C.M. Burns fashion:
Sontag- "Ah, winter white and spring time fresh!"
Linux Coder- "Oh, man! I really gotta go!"
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
The first couple of times I came to this page, there was an ad at the top for Caldera's OpenLinux for $7 or so. I wonder what the hinted at "Linux license" would run that up to? Meanwhile, SCO's own webpages explain that they have suspended sales until certain IP issues are resolved. 8^)
[Also, they can't seem to get their site security certs right.]
Second try. I goofed and posted off topic first time :(
I've long suspected Linus has already checked the Linux source to see how much code of the features SCO clames Linux got from SCO was actually contributed by IBM and of what nature was that code.
I long suspected Linus found IBM had little or no hand in that code or what code did cime from IBM was targeted to IBMs hardware and useless to platforms SCO supports.
It also may be the code is so much built around the Linux kernel that it could not come from SCOs kernel.
Or the features are so diffrent between the two platforms that it could not be the same code.
I also suspect SCO just assumes nither IBM nore the avrage hobby coder could come up with the same features with out stealing code.
I don't actually exist.
True, but that's not the point necessarily, as 1) they're not suing, and 2) I'm sure they'd back IBM on this one and grant them rights. (see further analysis of this point below). However, this doesn't grand SCO rights, as SCO did then release the tainted product, and they did so UNDER THE GPL. So you're right, IBM can't make it GPL'd since they don't own the rights. But SCO can at least make their portion GPL, and did. So despite the fact that they released a tainted product, they did so knowingly and voluntarily, under the GPL, including their code. So regardless of IBM's actions, SCO GPL'd their own code. And they did so after discovering it had their code, so they can't make a "Hey, didn't mean to do that" argument.
Your analysis of the A,B,C portions, I dunno...you could certainly argue two points. First, the intent of the authors certainly was to GPL their code, and these individual patches might be considered (or even were) GPL'd themselves. Second, you seem to be saying that the fact that SCO released a de-facto unlicensed product revokes the GPL copyright license they intended to grant through their product. In other words, "We can sue our licensees due to malfeasance of the person we licensed the original code from." And I don't think that would fly in any court. SCO, by default, intended to grant a license to their proprietary IP when they released a product they KNEW contained their code under the GPL. I don't think they then retain rights because they ultimately didn't have the rights they implicitly claimed originally. I really think that will be good enough for any court in the US.
In fact, I'll give an analogy. Let's say I'm a musician. I release an album, and for one of the songs I happened to have sampled a lot of someone else's song. I get sued, and I lose, proving that, indeed, I didn't have the right to sell that album containing that tainted song. But does that nullify the entire transfer of rights to that album? Can I then sue the people who bought the album and listened to it because they didn't have a valid license from me, since I didn't have the right to sell part of it? When you consider it in these terms, you see how ridiculous that is.
So, we have to ask which is the best option, in SCO's eyes? Cease production of their unprofitable Linux distribution, admit to copyright infringement against a bunch of kernel hackers who are unlikely to bring suit against them, and be able to sue IBM for billions of dollars? Or grant IBM the contract so they can keep the Linux distribution, sit back and watch their business fade away?
That's a good point - and so you're right, if IBM put code in, SCO can fairly argue that they might as well have kept releasing it, the cat was out of the bag, right? Best thing would have been for them to, at that point, GPL the tainted code, make it free, get some goodwill with the linux crowd, and have some positive PR when they nail IBM. Releasing the code wouldn't kill their trade secret attack, the damage being already done, so they would still have had ground. If I were SCO that's the smart thing - give away some worthless code, continue to sell Linux, their main revenue stream, sue IBM.
Instead of doing the smart thing, they kept releasing linux for quite a while knowing it had their IP inside, making them on shaky moral ground in the copyright realm. The problem is that this action, ie knowingly releasing under GPL a product that contained their code, seemingly indemnifies the non-IBM linux crowd they are threatening (though, again, NOT IBM). A perfect defense for Red Hat would be "They kept releasing it under GPL, so it had to have been OK by the license." So, they're pissing off linux users for no point, because they can't actually go after them, since th
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I have requested a couple of times they come clean about it but have got no answer so far.
Every single article that mentions Sun has a negative slant on spite of Sun being a respected and helpful company.
I just don't get it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Mode this shit above as -1 off topic.